Extremism, Mob Justice and State Complicity

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

I was just thinking about how it has become part of Nigerian culture to not only observe the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (the Constitution) in its breach, but to do so simply to gain votes, even if such breach is clearly detrimental to Nigeria, her development and her citizens. And, breaching the Constitution isn’t  restricted to Government alone; the citizens are also guilty of the same. The recent mob killing of one Ms Amaye in Niger State, on allegations of making a blasphemous statement, reaffirms this assertion, as Amaye was deprived of her right to life and was tortured and treated inhumanly by those who meted out jungle justice to her, contrary to Sections 33(1) & 34(1)(a) of the Constitution. It is true that freedom of expression guaranteed by Section 39(1) of the Constitution isn’t at large (see Section 45 of the Constitution which derogates from this right), but there are laws in place to punish a person who abuses their right to freedom of speech.

The Essence of Section 10 of the Constitution 

During the military days, there was no Section 10 of the Constitution, prohibiting the adoption of a National or individual State religion, but, it appears that even without such a provision, religious extremism wasn’t tolerated. During the regime of General Sani Abacha, Gideon Akaluka was beheaded by a mob in Kano, on what is said to have been a false allegation of blasphemy against the Holy Quran; his killers were said to have been apprehended and executed.

 And, when the Military were leaving, they bequeathed Decree No. 24 aka the 1999 Constitution, and inserted Section 10 therein. The essence of a provision like Section 10, is to separate the State from religion – this allows Government to make policies based on reason, instead of religious doctrine or beliefs; it ensures that citizens enjoy freedom of thought, conscience and religion – see Section 38(1) of the Constitution; it makes certain that citizens are tolerant of each other. If there is a State religion, it is likely that those who do not practice the State religion would suffer discrimination and persecution – see Section 42(1) of the Constitution. 

Additionally, religious laws may clash with other fundamental rights of citizens. For example, Section 40 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of association, which means two consenting adults can choose to commit adultery or fornication. On the contrary, Christianity (see Exodus 20:14, 1 Corinthians 6:18)andIslam (see Quran 24:2) forbid adultery and fornication. In 2002, Amina Lawal was sentenced to death by a Katsina State Sharia Court for adultery; her pregnancy outside wedlock was used as the evidence of her adultery. There was a global outcry against her conviction. And, even though Amina Lawal’s conviction was subsequently quashed by the Sharia Court of Appeal, it wasn’t on the ground that the Sharia Court lacked criminal (penal) jurisdiction, but on other grounds bordering on the invalidity of her confessional statement. See the case of Madukolu v Nkemdilim 1962 2 SCNLR 341. Again, despite Section 41(1) of the Constitution which provides for freedom of movement, on a news programme that I watched recently, it was revealed that Katsina State Hisbah Police arrest people at night for being out late, thereby breaching their right to freedom of movement.

Nigerian State’s Active Participation in Unconstitutionality 

Section 1(1) of the Cons titution provides that it is supreme and binding on all in Nigeria, while Section 1(3) thereof provides that any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency, be it Christian or Islamic law, or the laws of the Federation or a State. Instead of the Federal Government to have gone to court to have the adoption of Sharia Law in the 12 Northern States declared unconstitutional as it should be, that is, aside from the areas that have to do with marriage and inheritance, and the limits of its jurisdiction clearly restated, the Sharia States have been left to observe Section 10 in its breach. The so-called leaders prefer to turn a blind eye and not rock the boat, so as not to lose the votes of the Muslim North. 

 Sharia Courts even exercise penal jurisdiction which they do not have, because it hasn’t been conferred on them by the Constitution, going as far as sentencing people to death for blasphemy. In 2000, in Zamfara State, Bello Garki Zangebi’s right hand was amputated in a State Hospital, having been convicted by a Sharia Court for stealing. The Penal Code (PC)(applicable in the North, though now the individual Northern States have enacted their own Criminal Laws stemming from the PC) provides for the offence of theft, prescribing a punishment of up to 5 years imprisonment (see Sections 286-287). 

In 2020, Musician, Yahaya Sharif Aminu was sentenced to death by hanging by a Kano State Sharia Court for allegedly using derogatory expressions against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in a song. Imagine! A court that has absolutely no powers to do so, purporting to hand down the death sentence in the name of a sacred  religion that doesn’t even ask them to do so. See Quran 6:68, 6:108, 73:10, 41:34-36 – these Surahs talk about withdrawing from those who speak ignorantly; bearing what they say patiently; and leaving evil doers to God’s judgement; there’s no mention of murdering blasphemers. See also Aladejobi v NBA (2013) LPELR-20940(SC) per Stanley Shenko Allagoa, JSC on lack of jurisdiction. 

And, the Nigerian State/Legislature/Politicians look away, so that when the elections come they will not lose the votes of these lawbreakers! In the circumstances that the Nigerian State permits the practice of criminal Sharia Law, it shows its tendency to be a State that prioritises political gains over the primary purpose of government, that is, the security and welfare of its citizens (see Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution), and this doesn’t augur well for democracy. On the contrary, it undermines it, and not only erodes democratic institutions, but can lead to the State’s decline and instability. For one, the protection of the fundamental rights of citizens is one of the cornerstones of democracy, and this is sometimes incompatible with religious doctrine. When this contradiction occurs, the provisions of the Constitution must prevail.

Nigerian State’s Complicity in Mob Justice

The consequence of the breach of Section 10, is the fuelling of religious extremism and intolerance that we see today, particularly in the Sharia States. This has further led to mob justice, stoning and burning to death, usually for so-called blasphemy. The punishment for insult to religion (blasphemy) under the Criminal Code (CC)(applicable in the South, though now the individual Southern States have enacted their own  Criminal Laws stemming from the CC) is stricter than that of the PC, because though both prescribe a punishment of two years imprisonment, the PC gives an option of a fine which the CC doesn’t.  

The Nigerian State has become complicit in the perpetuation of mob killing for alleged blasphemy by Muslim extremists, who actually have no understanding of Islam or knowledge of the teachings of the Quran, and also criminals who also seize such opportunities to unleash violence on victims.

When people are killed in the name of blasphemy, the killers, even when they are known, suffer absolutely no punishment. For instance, when Mrs Bridget Agbahime was killed, again on a false charge of blasphemy fuelled by someone who coveted her shop in Kofar Wambai Market, some of her killers were known because they also had shops in the market; they were apprehended and prosecuted, but, shockingly, the then Attorney-General of Kano, misused his prosecutorial discretion and entered a Nolle Prosequi (unwilling to pursue)! And, the matter ended there. Kano State Government was obviously complicit in this injustice; how could the State Government be unwilling to prosecute suspected murderers, in light of the evidence stacked against them?

The fact that anybody can be framed and killed in such gruesome circumstances by a mob, is also frightening. Similarly, people in Sokoto went on a rampage when they tried to bring the killers of student, Deborah Samuel to justice. What will be the outcome of the case of Amaye who was stoned to death and her body set ablaze a few days ago in Kasuwan Garba area, Niger State, for allegedly making blasphemous remarks? People are already saying nothing will come out of it! This is an opportunity for the Nigerian State to make an example of those responsible for Amaye’s gruesome murder, to show that going forward, jungle justice will not be tolerated in Nigeria.

Conclusion 

Though Leviticus 24:16 in the Old Testament of the Bible prescribes death for those who blaspheme in the name of the Lord, today, for example, in Italy, the home of Catholicism, the punishment for the different types blasphemy offences is fines – public blasphemy attracts a fine of between €51 and €309. Italy has moved with the times – it is no longer a monarchy or religious State; it is a democracy. 

Despite the fact that Nigeria is in the third decade of this Fourth Republic, it appears that the Politicians prefer for us to regress into the dark ages instead of maturing, because this is exactly what the destructive and divisive tools which they have chosen to utilise to maintain political control, like religion and tribalism, have done – we are reversing instead of accelerating. For Nigerians to still be burning people alive in 2025 for any reason whatsoever, shows how backward and savage we are; for the State to turn a blind eye to it, standing by and doing nothing, is deplorable and unacceptable. After all, this isn’t Medieval times of the 5th century or during the Inquisition (12th – 19th century) or Spanish Inquisition (15th – 19th century)  where burning at the stake for heresy, witchcraft, treason and the like were State-sanctioned punishments. This is 2025, the 21st century!